Thread: Nationwide bank charges £1900.00

Hi

I wrote to Nationwide in March 08 requesting that they pay all the charges back to me plus interest as I was experiencing financial hardship, The total came to over £1900.00

They wrote back to me in April and advised me that they could not agree that I was experiencing financial hardship and that the charges were due to their t&c.

I then wrote back on the in April asking what information was required to convince them I was experiencing hardship. They replied back in June that they need to clarify their legal position once the OFT case was resolved.

I have since then cancelled all my direct debits on that account and transferred them to another account.

They have since then continually charged me and this account has now overdrawn to their charges.

What could be my next step?

Similar Threads:

• HELP - LG TV £1900 -Broken 16 months later.
• Nationwide Bank Charges
• Bank charges from Nationwide
• Nationwide bank charges
• Nationwide Bank Charges £20

I think they are in the test case. could anyone plese clarify this.

Also the £1900.00 in charges have gone up by at least another £300.00 all in charges. could I also claim that back.

Would'nt I need to go direct to oft first

sorry i'm new but what's an n1

so where do i get the n1 form from?

To complete the N1 go here (do not use MCOL).

You may qualify for court fee exemption or remission as here.

You should get your claim in soonest to get the interest clock ticking and so that you will be one of the first in line for payment, providing of course the OFT are successful.

I have sent a letter to Nationwide already saying that I will go to the oft. Do you not need to go there now?

Should I fill in the n1 form first.

Forget about the OFT, they are in a battle with the banks in the test case.

N1 is the way forward.

Nationwide ARE one of the parties in the test case. This doesn't greatly matter as the parties which aren't involved will be bound by the result of the case.

Nationwide DOES have a policy on hardship, it was just coming together as I left. Essentailly you would have to do some sort of statement of affairs before they would even entertain it is my understanding.

Even then I would imagine they may reject it unless it was done by some kind of debt advice charity. In any even they should certainly stop levying the charges but just can't be bothered.

I would be interested in any information you get from senior staff members about this as, in my view, very little information is volunteered to customers.

Everyone can see how absurd this situation is save for the organisation. If they repaid the charges would you be in credit or debit?

if they repaid the all charges (around £2000.00) i would be in credit. currently I am overdrawn by around £100.00 because of their charges. I would certainly pay off some of my creditors.

If they stopped charging me interest, and charges I would not be overdrawn. I don't even have an overdraft facilty on this account but they charge you their charges and when you don't have enough money in the account to cover their charges they overdraw you and then charge you for an unautherised overdraft fee.

However if a direct debit needs paying which may be £1.00 over they will happily bounce it and then charge you £30.00.

Tosh,

See here :-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ed-claims.html

Get your N1 filled in and be ready.

fsa waiver

In making an assessment of financial difficulty the firm will take into account:

a. evidence of changes in lifestyle, including loss of employment; disability; serious illness; imprisonment; relationship Breakdown; death of a partner; starting a lower paid job; parental/carer leave; and starting full-time education;

b. evidence of the following events:

Items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;

Failing to make loan repayments or other commitments;

Discontinuation of regular credits;

Notification of some form of insolvency or court proceedings;

Regular requests for increased borrowing or repeated rescheduling of debts;

Making frequent cash withdrawals on a credit card at a non-promotional rate of interest; and

Repeatedly exceeding a credit card or overdraft limit without agreement (and, in this regard, where a complainant has incurred over £500 in unauthorised overdraft charges in the previous 12 months, that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty).

A bank has 8 weeks from the point a claimant indicates to the bank that they believe they are a hardship case. This applies both to cases where a claim for bank charges is made from a claimant who is claiming hardship (at the same time) and also where a claimant with a bank charge claim already made is subsequently claiming hardship status.

You don't have to put in a separate complaint to your bank about the hardship element of the claim, to exhaust the 8 week complaints time limit in order for the fos to take up your case. Therefore if the bank has taken more than 8 weeks to decide on your status the FOS will take up the case.

In the instances where a bank does not agree that a claimant is a hardship case then you can go straight to the FOS who will adjudicate, and if they agree you have hardship status, they will make a recomendation to the bank on whether they should refund the charges.

The hardship criteria the FOS would use is the FSA waiver guidance posted above.

If a claimant is told otherwise by the FOS on any aspects of this confirmation then speak to this contact name:

Jonathon Locke,
Assistant Manager
Financial Ombudsman Service


Direct dial No 020 7964 0334

Interesting read here:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...sp_monthly.pdf

I want to pick this up am now determind to finish this. Nationwide have recently sent me a letter stating the recent court case was in their favur and they are closing the file.

My reply is to send them this (your thought as usual are greatly appreicated) -

Dear Mr Wood

I am writing in response to your letter dated January 2010 in which you have advised my complaint about unfair bank charges is to be closed and have given me 2 months to respond.
I feel that in issuing these charges you have broken the FSA’s regulatory principle to ‘pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly’ and I am writing to request that you do not close my complaint but instead take the following grounds into consideration:
The charges are unfair under s.140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and contrary to the requirement of good faith, having caused a significant imbalance in our relationship and a detriment to myself, and under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the following respects (save for, in the case of the later, those matters which relate to the level of the charge as against the service supplied in exchange):
(1) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the bank caused by my conduct which triggered the charges.
(2) The charges were set by reference to the overall cost to the bank of providing current accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of my conduct thereby effectively requiring me to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the bank to other customers.
(3) In the premises the bank did not deal fairly as between myself and its other customers.
(4) The existence and quantum of the charges were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to my attention either; when my account was first opened; when I gave an instruction which would result in the levying of a charge; or otherwise before any particular charge was applied.
(5) The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for the application of multiple charges and the levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges.
(6) The complexity of the charges and/or the circumstances in which they were levied.
(7) The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application was such as to cause me inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance.
(8) The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted my ability to chose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by your bank.
(9) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges.
In particular, and without prejudice, the burden of proof for the above rests onNationwide to prove that the circumstances of our relationship are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), so unless you can provide evidence to the contrary I expect a refund of the full amount requested by return.
I now ask that you repay the amount I have previously requested..
I look forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days and if I do not receive a satisfactory response I intend to pursue my complaint to small claims court at the earliest opportunity.

Yours faithfully,

Hi Tosh. Long time no see.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but you've certainly covered the issues as I understand them.

The part that I would perhaps take issue with is "punitive". Charges were found not to be a penalty, and I would say a penalty is punitive.

It's your choice, but as you haven't put your claim in at court yet it might be better to see how other cases that are already in the system work out.

Thanks Caro

but would Nationwide not just close the complaint.

Originally Posted by tosh1

Thanks Caro

but would Nationwide not just close the complaint.

Morning all

If they did, I would recommend issuing proceedings immediately, as the Pre Action Protocol, has already been complied with.

Best wishes to everyone

Dougal

Just recieved the letter today from Nationwide -

Thank you for your recent letter addressed to Jeremy Wood, in view of your concerns I
have been asked to respond on Mr Wood's behalf. I am writing to tell you ~e have
completed our investigation. Nationwide's response to the numbered paragraphs in your
letter is as follows:-

(1) The Supreme Court held that unarranged borrowing charges are part of the price
that customers pay for the whole package of services provided to them under a current
account agreement. The charges therefore come within the exemption to regulation 5(1)
that is contained in regulation 6(2)(b) and the amount of the charge is not assessable for
fairness. Your argument is simply another way of saying "the charge is too high" and the
Supreme Court has held that the charges cannot be challenged on that basis.

(2) & (3) There is an element of cross-subsidy in a multitude of consumer contracts.
All FlexAccounts are operated under identical terms and conditions. Consequently, it
cannot be said that Nationwide has treated you less favourably than other customers.
Your argument is, again, another way of saying "the charge is too high" and the points
made in response to (1), above, apply.

(4) The Commercial Court considered the version of Nationwide's terms and
conditions that was in force at the time of the first hearing in the test case. The
provisions regarding charges were found to be in "plain intelligible language". As the
terms and conditions considered by the court were substantially the same as other
versions, the court's decision applies equally to the other versions.
(5) It is the operation of the account that gives rise to the application of charges, not
the charges, themselves.
(6) & (7) See (4) above.

(8) All current account providers are entitled to charge for the provision of a current
account. The fact that they have, in the past, imposed similar charges does not indicate
a lack of competition. Nationwide's charges have been amongst the lowest on the
market.
(9) See (1), above.
Your suggestion that the charges constitute an Unfair Relationship under s140A of the
Consumer Credit Act 1974 is refuted. Your claim boils down to an argument that the
_relationship_betweetLyou and Nationwide is unfai.t..by reason.of the way in which you
have operated your account. As stated above, all FlexAccounts operate under identical
terms and conditions. The fact that you have operated your account in such a way as to
incur unarranged borrowing charges cannot give rise to a finding that the relationship
was unfair. Any finding of unfairness must be made "because of' the terms of the
agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer."

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Albert
Member Relations Officer
~

any advice on the above as always is greatly appreicated